Is Atheism Predicated Partially on the Belief in Evolution?

Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science.

If so, then such a belief is subject to drastic changes as discoveries and theories

have recently arose that shatter the paradigm that is the foundation of such a belief:

Discoveries keep pushing back the inception of civilization, indefinitely back in time

Evidence of coastal civilizations existing during the ice age are arising in now inundated coastal region due to rising seas.

The concept of a missing link is no longer postulated as a bush of hominids lineages walked the earth. With what was once considered ancestors, actually being contemporary with postulated descendants. A bush of hominids actually existed as recently as 30,0000 B.C.E.

Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life.

Our very existence is interwoven with the anthropic principle. As such this has required scientist to postulate the multiverse to explain how the anthropic principle is mindlessly satisfied by nature. However this just substitutes one unfalsifiable believe for another.

In truth, Darwin's world has been shattered and the truth has become intractable. Even as we cope with dark matter and energy. Terms that falsely connote that we have defined them, when in fact they are no more apparent than God. As such new scientific theories continue to emerge based on the inadequacy of the standard model. This will continue into infinitum since, as God there is no means to detect these alleged entities with scientific instrumentation.

Since there was never an historical Noah (must be one of those biblical fables you've been deriding), you must mean Zuisudra, who, as I mentioned earlier, actually WAS involved in a Euphrates River flood, was never mocked (at least to his face), and doubtless considered himself damned lucky that trading barge was in port, so he could haul his royal ass out of there and let the little people worry about treading water.

How do we know that there ever was a given historical person? By the evidence. Ergo, in order for there to BE an historical Noah, that evidence for an historical Noah exists, goes without saying, so I didn't say it.

As for Zuisudra, he is listed on eight of the ten still intact, stone Mesopotamian Kings Lists, in the native language of the reagion, and on a ninth in Greek. I would consider that to be evidence, but saying that there was an historical Zuisudra, already implies that evidence is available. Some prefer to conserve words when possible, rather than splurge with them, on the assumption that they have a surplus remaining (or that they fear they're nearing the end of their supply and prefer not to retain a remainder), like some I know.

But you DID know about Jimmy Hoffa? That kid who didn't know John Wayne probably didn't know who Jimmy Hoffa was, either, but probably did know who John Wayne Gacy was because serial killers is something little boys are interested in.